I recently discovered the UA brute archetype for the fighter.... This class seems amazingly powerful ... has anyone tested it? does it unbalance the game?
I haven’t tested it, but I have run some models in terms of damage dealt. The battlemaster has a better nova round and can make better use of GWM/Sharpshooter. The brute does have better DPR, but I don’t think that matters much. I haven’t looked at the other brute features as deeply. The differences aren’t that big.
The brute is a good match for the battlemaster. It’s what the Champion always should have been.
Is it too strong? Playtesting has shown that this seems to be a better Barbarian, as the extra damage scales roughly on par with extra rage damage, and the level 7 ability (coupled with Indomitable) has allowed some staggeringly good resistances, both with traps and in combat. By the time the barbarian is getting Brutal Critical, the Fighter is creeping up on their third attack. The damage resistance is offset with Heavy Armor Mastery. The only real advantage barbarian has over the brute is Advantage from Reckless Attack, and Advantage can come from many sources. And none of which is restricted to times-per-day like Rages are, or have restrictions of hitting or being hit.
In a very real way, the Brute is outshining the Barbarian at its own game, on top of getting all the feats, Fighting Styles and ASI of the Fighter. I personally believe that qualifies as "too strong."
Amusingly enough, despite the name, this is one of the times when the Fighter is best as a dex-y two weapon warrior, dealing 3d6+3d4+DEX*3 damage, or oddly working the crossbows as a "brute." Neither of which really fit the name or theme of the subclass. Well, you could also be a Polearm Master Brute, I suppose, but I just find the idea of a brutish archer amusing.
EDIT - That said, will the Brute wreck your game? That did not happen for me, though we end at level 10; higher levels might be an issue. They definitely felt like they were edging up towards "unbeatable monster" territory, and were outshining others in terms of melee damage, so that brought a bit of concern with the table's rogue as well, and I did have to up the challenge difficulty a bit. Definitely on the upper edge there.
Is it too strong? Playtesting has shown that this seems to be a better Barbarian, as the extra damage scales roughly on par with extra rage damage, and the level 7 ability (coupled with Indomitable) has allowed some staggeringly good resistances, both with traps and in combat. By the time the barbarian is getting Brutal Critical, the Fighter is creeping up on their third attack. The damage resistance is offset with Heavy Armor Mastery. The only real advantage barbarian has over the brute is Advantage from Reckless Attack, and Advantage can come from many sources. And none of which is restricted to times-per-day like Rages are, or have restrictions of hitting or being hit.
In a very real way, the Brute is outshining the Barbarian at its own game, on top of getting all the feats, Fighting Styles and ASI of the Fighter. I personally believe that qualifies as "too strong."
Amusingly enough, despite the name, this is one of the times when the Fighter is best as a dex-y two weapon warrior, dealing 3d6+3d4+DEX*3 damage, or oddly working the crossbows as a "brute." Neither of which really fit the name or theme of the subclass. Well, you could also be a Polearm Master Brute, I suppose, but I just find the idea of a brutish archer amusing.
EDIT - That said, will the Brute wreck your game? That did not happen for me, though we end at level 10; higher levels might be an issue. They definitely felt like they were edging up towards "unbeatable monster" territory, and were outshining others in terms of melee damage, so that brought a bit of concern with the table's rogue as well, and I did have to up the challenge difficulty a bit. Definitely on the upper edge there.
A couple of points about the Brute that you are missing as you are mentioning damage as the key reason you are thinking it is outshining the Barb class.
Barbarians are not meant to be the highest damage dealer. They are tanks and can/will absorb damage.
They have the highest Hit Dice (d12)
Bear Totem Barbarian has resistance to almost everything (minus Psychic)
Adv. on Dex Saves
Barbarians have other flavor abilities that the Brute lacks
Beast Sense/Speak with Animals
Consult the Spirits (Clairvoyance/Augury)
The Brute seems to lack a real ribbon ability outside of combat...meaning if you have a truly balanced game, (1/3rd each of social, exploration, and combat) you will feel next to useless for 2/3rds of the game.
Also all of the Brute abilities are pretty self-centered, while the Barbarian has abilities that allow you to help others:
Zealous Presence
Spirit Shield/Ancestral Protectors
Totem Attunement
Since DnD is a team game you may get better mileage out of these abilities on the whole.
So overall if you are basing overall utility on DPR or Damage in general then yes the Brute is better....but for overall Utility I would argue the Barbarian would be better in the long run.
It's certainly better than the champion and on par with the Battlemaster. Maybe it seems OP due to the champions weakness. It is the only fighter class where twf is really competitive with the other options.
I would consider reducing the Brutish durability to a D4 and scaling up to D6 at a later level.
Yeah the fact that it makes TWF more viable is pretty cool. I am glad that a lot of the UA stuff is trying to make use of little used parts of the game (Exploration, Reaction, etc...).
I like your suggestion of the Brutish durability to a D4. I think that would even it up a bit. Otherwise I think you could give advantage on a saving throw but only allow it up to the number of times of an ability modifier (DEX or STR) and have it reset on a long rest? That way they aren't eating up as much time rolling dice and use it when they really need it.
One of my players is using Brute with Polearm mastery. At level 4, he is dealing 1d10+1d4+5 damage and 2d4+5 damage per turn. He has GWF adding about 4 damage to the average. At the 28 damage he is dealing on average, he is usually killing 1-2 enemies per turn. As a reaction, he gets another 18 damage on average. He definately deals more damage than others the group on average, but at the same time, he doesn't have any way to burst that average any higher. His baseline damage is higher than everyone elses, but his top end damage is considerably lower than the Wizard, Druid, and Hexblade warlock he is partied with.
Overall, I wouldn't say it feels OP but it does feel consistently good. Outside of combat, he has next to no utility from his class. He loves the subclass because he is fairly new to the game and likes the simple play style. He wants to hit hard and not think about mechanics. "Hit thing until it dies. Hit next thing." It might seem overly simple but it is the kind of gameplay he is looking for.
My other players would hate the Brute play style due to lack of AoE, lack of versatility, as well as no RP utility.
One of my players is using Brute with Polearm mastery. At level 4, he is dealing 1d10+1d4+5 damage and 2d4+5 damage per turn. He has GWF adding about 4 damage to the average. At the 28 damage he is dealing on average, he is usually killing 1-2 enemies per turn. As a reaction, he gets another 18 damage on average. He definately deals more damage than others the group on average, but at the same time, he doesn't have any way to burst that average any higher. His baseline damage is higher than everyone elses, but his top end damage is considerably lower than the Wizard, Druid, and Hexblade warlock he is partied with.
Overall, I wouldn't say it feels OP but it does feel consistently good. Outside of combat, he has next to no utility from his class. He loves the subclass because he is fairly new to the game and likes the simple play style. He wants to hit hard and not think about mechanics. "Hit thing until it dies. Hit next thing." It might seem overly simple but it is the kind of gameplay he is looking for.
My other players would hate the Brute play style due to lack of AoE, lack of versatility, as well as no RP utility.
My thoughts exactly. You do more damage but it lacks the utility of the other classes. With Barbarians or other fighter sub-classes you get some utility out of ribbon abilities out of combat. Also the abilities of the brute are very self-centered and do not really support the team dynamic as much as the Barbarian subclass features or other fighter subclass features.
I think the most important things have been said already. Brutish Durability might need to be a D4, but other than that, the class is exactly what Champion was meant to be. A fighting fighter and nothing else. I think there's more room for unique roleplay when your class/subclass has almost zero impact on your character's flavor, and forces a player to be more creative if they want to provide utility outside of combat.
However,
I personally think Brute Force should only apply to melee/thrown weapon attacks, but it's probably not necessary for balance.
The damage resistance is offset with Heavy Armor Mastery.
I'd like to see some math on this. In my current game (party lvl 8 average) we're fighting enemies that can do 15-20 points of damage a hit. HAM drops off 3 points of damage. Rage Resistance drops off half of most incoming damage. That's 7-10 points per hit. By my math this is MUCH better than HAM.
I suppose it depends on whether your DM likes bigger critters or hordes of smaller ones though. Against a boss, Resistance is much more effective. Against a horde of smaller attacks, HAM would likely win out.
I play a brute who just turned 11 so I'll let you know my experience at least. It's great at hitting hard and staying alive. But literally nothing else. Given that it feels balanced to me. That's not to say having a 20 strength isn't super helpful for out of combat too!
Also fun thought - if your dm allowed brute to work with unarmed strikes you could make a real fun grappler.
Amusingly enough, despite the name, this is one of the times when the Fighter is best as a dex-y two weapon warrior, dealing 3d6+3d4+DEX*3 damage, or oddly working the crossbows as a "brute." Neither of which really fit the name or theme of the subclass. Well, you could also be a Polearm Master Brute, I suppose, but I just find the idea of a brutish archer amusing.
When you said brutish archer, I immediately thought of the Uruk-hai that killed Boromir in LOTR. He'd definitely fits the part.
To me the Brute has 2 big problems. The first one is the lack of utility out of combat (coupled with its utility in combat being self-centered but it's in par with the flavor of the archetype). Second it makes TWF a better option (even optimal) for this archetype which should be a good thing...but not in this case because it's not the right flavor for the archetype. When you think Brute, you think a big man hitting with no finesse and no thinking, and hitting with a 2-handed weapon... something like Conan... Yes a barbarian... Hence the problem.
A strength based two-weapon fighter uses 2 handaxes. They did a Forged in Fire episode where they had to make a matched pair of Viking War axes, in testing they used them in two-weapon fighting. do a google search for viking war axe and you will see how they would work as handaxes.
I recently discovered the UA brute archetype for the fighter.... This class seems amazingly powerful ... has anyone tested it? does it unbalance the game?
I haven’t tested it, but I have run some models in terms of damage dealt. The battlemaster has a better nova round and can make better use of GWM/Sharpshooter. The brute does have better DPR, but I don’t think that matters much. I haven’t looked at the other brute features as deeply. The differences aren’t that big.
The brute is a good match for the battlemaster. It’s what the Champion always should have been.
Is it too strong? Playtesting has shown that this seems to be a better Barbarian, as the extra damage scales roughly on par with extra rage damage, and the level 7 ability (coupled with Indomitable) has allowed some staggeringly good resistances, both with traps and in combat. By the time the barbarian is getting Brutal Critical, the Fighter is creeping up on their third attack. The damage resistance is offset with Heavy Armor Mastery. The only real advantage barbarian has over the brute is Advantage from Reckless Attack, and Advantage can come from many sources. And none of which is restricted to times-per-day like Rages are, or have restrictions of hitting or being hit.
In a very real way, the Brute is outshining the Barbarian at its own game, on top of getting all the feats, Fighting Styles and ASI of the Fighter. I personally believe that qualifies as "too strong."
Amusingly enough, despite the name, this is one of the times when the Fighter is best as a dex-y two weapon warrior, dealing 3d6+3d4+DEX*3 damage, or oddly working the crossbows as a "brute." Neither of which really fit the name or theme of the subclass. Well, you could also be a Polearm Master Brute, I suppose, but I just find the idea of a brutish archer amusing.
EDIT - That said, will the Brute wreck your game? That did not happen for me, though we end at level 10; higher levels might be an issue. They definitely felt like they were edging up towards "unbeatable monster" territory, and were outshining others in terms of melee damage, so that brought a bit of concern with the table's rogue as well, and I did have to up the challenge difficulty a bit. Definitely on the upper edge there.
Only way I can see brute as borderline is if combined with assassin for some rather significalt flashdamage
The Brute seems to lack a real ribbon ability outside of combat...meaning if you have a truly balanced game, (1/3rd each of social, exploration, and combat) you will feel next to useless for 2/3rds of the game.
Also all of the Brute abilities are pretty self-centered, while the Barbarian has abilities that allow you to help others:
Since DnD is a team game you may get better mileage out of these abilities on the whole.
So overall if you are basing overall utility on DPR or Damage in general then yes the Brute is better....but for overall Utility I would argue the Barbarian would be better in the long run.
It's certainly better than the champion and on par with the Battlemaster. Maybe it seems OP due to the champions weakness. It is the only fighter class where twf is really competitive with the other options.
I would consider reducing the Brutish durability to a D4 and scaling up to D6 at a later level.
Yeah the fact that it makes TWF more viable is pretty cool. I am glad that a lot of the UA stuff is trying to make use of little used parts of the game (Exploration, Reaction, etc...).
I like your suggestion of the Brutish durability to a D4. I think that would even it up a bit. Otherwise I think you could give advantage on a saving throw but only allow it up to the number of times of an ability modifier (DEX or STR) and have it reset on a long rest? That way they aren't eating up as much time rolling dice and use it when they really need it.
One of my players is using Brute with Polearm mastery. At level 4, he is dealing 1d10+1d4+5 damage and 2d4+5 damage per turn. He has GWF adding about 4 damage to the average. At the 28 damage he is dealing on average, he is usually killing 1-2 enemies per turn. As a reaction, he gets another 18 damage on average. He definately deals more damage than others the group on average, but at the same time, he doesn't have any way to burst that average any higher. His baseline damage is higher than everyone elses, but his top end damage is considerably lower than the Wizard, Druid, and Hexblade warlock he is partied with.
Overall, I wouldn't say it feels OP but it does feel consistently good. Outside of combat, he has next to no utility from his class. He loves the subclass because he is fairly new to the game and likes the simple play style. He wants to hit hard and not think about mechanics. "Hit thing until it dies. Hit next thing." It might seem overly simple but it is the kind of gameplay he is looking for.
My other players would hate the Brute play style due to lack of AoE, lack of versatility, as well as no RP utility.
My thoughts exactly. You do more damage but it lacks the utility of the other classes. With Barbarians or other fighter sub-classes you get some utility out of ribbon abilities out of combat. Also the abilities of the brute are very self-centered and do not really support the team dynamic as much as the Barbarian subclass features or other fighter subclass features.
However,
I personally think Brute Force should only apply to melee/thrown weapon attacks, but it's probably not necessary for balance.
I'd like to see some math on this. In my current game (party lvl 8 average) we're fighting enemies that can do 15-20 points of damage a hit. HAM drops off 3 points of damage. Rage Resistance drops off half of most incoming damage. That's 7-10 points per hit. By my math this is MUCH better than HAM.
I suppose it depends on whether your DM likes bigger critters or hordes of smaller ones though. Against a boss, Resistance is much more effective. Against a horde of smaller attacks, HAM would likely win out.
I play a brute who just turned 11 so I'll let you know my experience at least. It's great at hitting hard and staying alive. But literally nothing else. Given that it feels balanced to me. That's not to say having a 20 strength isn't super helpful for out of combat too!
Also fun thought - if your dm allowed brute to work with unarmed strikes you could make a real fun grappler.
I've always wanted to try a Hercules-style Grappler build. Might have to run one up and see how it looks.
When you said brutish archer, I immediately thought of the Uruk-hai that killed Boromir in LOTR. He'd definitely fits the part.
It specifies all hits, no limitations, unarmed inclued, if the DM doesn't allow it they need to read the class feature again.
I believe that Crawford has said Brute is dead and won't make it out of UA.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
I heard that it may be in the Guildmasters Guide to Ravinca. we will see.
To me the Brute has 2 big problems. The first one is the lack of utility out of combat (coupled with its utility in combat being self-centered but it's in par with the flavor of the archetype). Second it makes TWF a better option (even optimal) for this archetype which should be a good thing...but not in this case because it's not the right flavor for the archetype. When you think Brute, you think a big man hitting with no finesse and no thinking, and hitting with a 2-handed weapon... something like Conan... Yes a barbarian... Hence the problem.
A strength based two-weapon fighter uses 2 handaxes. They did a Forged in Fire episode where they had to make a matched pair of Viking War axes, in testing they used them in two-weapon fighting. do a google search for viking war axe and you will see how they would work as handaxes.
It isn't in the Ravnica book.
Personally, I don't think that the Brute subclass will make it to a published book - certainly not in its current form.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊